What's Your “Position” on Nuclear Power? An Exploration of Conflict in Stakeholder Participation for Decision‐making about Risky Technologies

Abstract

One of the exigent issues concerning stakeholder engagement in decision‐making for nuclear power generation facilities is the manner in which conflict is acknowledged and managed. In order to manage conflict effectively, one must understand the full variability of positions on certain issues, and from perspectives of diverse stakeholders. Research to‐date on risk perception and resultant conflict has been conducted almost exclusively from the perspective of the public. This paper utilizes grounded theory methodology combined with a case study approach to explore the decision‐making processes for the re‐licensing of two local nuclear power generation facilities; Pickering ‘A’ and Bruce ‘A’ from the perspective of the nuclear industry, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, government, Non‐Governmental Organizations, scientists, and public. Situational analysis is a tool utilized to generate 7 positional maps which display the diversity of viewpoints on major contested issues such as environmental, technical, and financial risk, availability of information, and satisfaction with the process for stakeholder engagement. The paper concludes that conflict can be both negative and positive, and recommends the best way to reduce the potential for conflict is by actively engaging stakeholders in facilitated discussions with ground rules for conduct of all participants, and conducting discussions over the long‐term and well before (and after) legislated public consultations take place. The results of this study provide a useful framework for future quantitative exploration of the issues illustrated in each of the 7 positional maps.

Down the Line: Assessing the Trajectory of Energy Policy Research Development

“…Risks tend to be evaluated by individuals based on potential hazards posed not only to themselves and their communities but also to future generations (Drottz‐Sjoberg, ), and past experiences can have a profound impact on public acceptance of future nuclear policy (Laes & Schroder, ). Facilitated engagement of multiple stakeholders prior to public discussions may provide a better understanding of perceived risks and inform more comprehensive nuclear energy policy (Poetz, ). An examination of policymaking processes in some European Union countries suggests that “opening up” policy choices, encouraging the use of participatory methods and efforts to gain local acceptance can have a depoliticizing effect (Lehtonen, ).…”

“Risk Is a Social Thing, Not Just a Mathematical Thing:” A Model for Stakeholder Engagement in Decision Making

“…Details of this system were articulated through the use of situational analysis; these details are beyond the scope of this paper and are illustrated elsewhere as an adjunct to the model presented here (see Poetz 2011b). The relationship among stakeholders is placed at the center of the model in order to denote its central importance for mitigating conflict, for achieving effective communication and understanding, and for reducing risk perceptions (see Poetz 2010Poetz , 2011aPoetz , 2011b for full discussion of these systems). The four elements surrounding the core "relationship" promotes a cause-effect relationship in either direction; these elements expand or contract the model according to positive or negative effects.…”

“…In order to achieve a level of personal interaction with greater public inclusion, there needs to be a forum which balances the informal nature of open houses with the structure of the formal hearing process (see Poetz 2011a). An opportunity for informal discussion with a moderator present for the purpose of mediation would be one such compromise.…”

“…approach). An example of such a contingency is an external disaster (such as Chernobyl or Fukushima) that could heighten risk perceptions beyond the impacted community and subsequently increase the potential for conflict during consultation processes across the globe (see Poetz 2010Poetz , 2011a. The paper will further argue that heightened risk perceptions, whatever the origin, are important to acknowledge and address appropriately, in order to build trust and credibility in institutions that conduct consultation(s) for decision making purposes.…”

“…For instances in this paper where the term "public consultation" is used, it reflects the terminology which has been used in the work which is being cited. Most existing frameworks separate "the public" from "experts" in an "us and them" manner (this concept has been explored in more detail elsewhere; see Poetz (2010Poetz ( , 2011a. Thus, the term "stakeholder" is used in place of "public" wherever possible in order to acknowledge the fact that "the public" is a heterogeneous group of individuals comprised of members of industry, government, non-governmental organizations, academia, etc.…”